[Besoeker]

Ok let me clarify this.

Pure: Religion is supposed to be about God. And all religions have some concept of God, but unfortunately it's watered down with either idols that supposedly help get you to God (like Hinduism), or with more focus on a specific tribe (like Judaism) or a personality who is supposed to be god-in-flesh (like Christianity). Islam is purely about God. Just you and God. There's no middle men, no clergy, it's just you and pure unadulterated devotion to the one true God.

Transforming: Islam does not say "Just do whatever you like, but just believe in Jesus and you'll be saved" or something to this effect. You cannot become a Muslim without transforming yourself and replacing the sinful parts of your lifestyle with the Islamic lifestyle. It did not come to simply be a title or an identity that people hold, it came to change our lives, dramatically. It is uncompromising and strict in its adherence to its original teachings.

I don't think liberalism necessarily encourages this. I think capitalism encourages this, because capitalists want to increase their customer base and their worker base, and so they desire rapidly increasing populations, that can't be filled by reproduction alone. So they turn to immigration.

Perhaps you're not aware, but Muslims (male anyway) are forbidden from wearing silk.

"Terrorists" are a product of Western aggressions against the Muslim world, nothing more nothing less. They are not an entity unto themselves, they're a reactionary response. Stop sticking your paw into the beehive, and the bees won't sting you. I know the allure of the honey is too much and you can't resist, but you must if you wanna stop bitching about terrorism.

The tolerance of plural interpretations is a very recent advent in Christianity. And has largely only been the case since Christianity was "domesticated" by atheist secularists. It's basically because they took the Christianity out of Christianity that it was able to tolerate dissent.

You have much to say yet still evade my simple question despite your assertion that you don't evade.
Is it can't or won't answer? I suspect the former.
Prove me wrong.

[Paul Sanderson]

Ok let me clarify this. Pure: Religion is supposed to be about God. And all religions have some concept of God, but unfortunately it's watered down with either idols that supposedly help get you to God (like Hinduism), or with more focus on a specific tribe (like Judaism) or a personality who is supposed to be god-in-flesh (like Christianity). Islam is purely about God. Just you and God. There's no middle men, no clergy, it's just you and pure unadulterated devotion to the one true God.

I don’t know if you can say that Christians aren’t “pure” because they worship God in human form. I would expect you mean “wrong in thinking that Jesus is God”. This is another debate altogether though. But with regard to idol worship, Muslims seem to have an extreme feeling of attachment to Mohammed which is the equivalent of worshipping a human when there should be no reason for this because he was actually just a “messenger”- the same as Moses or David or anyone.

Transforming: Islam does not say "Just do whatever you like, but just believe in Jesus and you'll be saved" or something to this effect.

This isn’t true of Christianity either. People who believe in Jesus as the messiah aren’t necessarily guaranteed a place in heaven. One of the major problems with any religion is the translation of the text (in this case from Greek to English). The Greek in the bible uses a tense that shows that you must continue walking in the ways of Jesus to be saved. This doesn’t translate to English very well. There are a few passages that will tell you that you won’t go to heaven based on belief in Jesus alone.

You cannot become a Muslim without transforming yourself and replacing the sinful parts of your lifestyle with the Islamic lifestyle. It did not come to simply be a title or an identity that people hold, it came to change our lives, dramatically. It is uncompromising and strict in its adherence to its original teachings.

Why do you think this differs from Christianity?

I don't think liberalism necessarily encourages this. I think capitalism encourages this, because capitalists want to increase their customer base and their worker base, and so they desire rapidly increasing populations, that can't be filled by reproduction alone. So they turn to immigration.

It’s definitely both. I’m not sure how much less big business men can afford to pay immigrant workers than natives, especially today when we have a minimum wage. But even in the past, it’s hard to imagine a handful of wealthy men welcoming these continuous waves of hundreds of thousands of Asians and Africans into the country so that they can fill out some of the lower paid positions. The money they would have to spend on lobbying the government and (to all intents and purposes) bribing newspapers to run pro-immigrant stories might as well have been spent on paying that bit extra to native workers.

Perhaps you're not aware, but Muslims (male anyway) are forbidden from wearing silk.

I think it’s clothing made of “pure” silk. But this is interesting nonetheless and I never knew about it before Googling it.

"Terrorists" are a product of Western aggressions against the Muslim world, nothing more nothing less. They are not an entity unto themselves, they're a reactionary response. Stop sticking your paw into the beehive, and the bees won't sting you. I know the allure of the honey is too much and you can't resist, but you must if you wanna stop bitching about terrorism.

True, they are a product of Western aggression, but this doesn’t mean Islamic terrorism should be accepted within your own country. Like I was saying, it’s understandable that an Iraqi would fight against British soldiers in Iraq. But for “British” Muslims who are born and raised in Britain to show loyalty to Iraqi Muslims instead of their own state because of their devotion to Islam, this is a product of liberalism and diversity.

The tolerance of plural interpretations is a very recent advent in Christianity. And has largely only been the case since Christianity was "domesticated" by atheist secularists. It's basically because they took the Christianity out of Christianity that it was able to tolerate dissent.

The “tolerance” of plural interpretations by Catholics and Protestants is fairly recent. But the existence of different interpretations is far from new. I don’t see why you would think that Christianity is less likely to be pluralistic when Jesus spoke mostly in parables.

"I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Matthew 15:24)

This again can be interpreted differently. “Lost sheep of Israel” is likely to mean “strayed from the house of Israel” (some Bibles clearly write it in this way). “Israel” is said by many to be symbolic rather than literal. Much in the same way that “The New Jerusalem “ is meant to describe “the world after the second coming (heaven on earth)” and not “the actual city of Jerusalem regenerated”

[layman]

Given back to who exactly? The Roman empire (Byzantium) was liquidated, and the inheritors of it were the Ottomans. Sultan Muhammad al-Fatiih himself was actually a descendant of several Byzantine emperors, and upon conquering Constantinople, the former rulers recognised him as the inheritor of their former empire.

Given back to the europeans/christians of course ...

That is a strange sort of logic. This conquest was legit because Rome was utterly destroyed without a trace and some sultan was a descendant of someone

Face it, you have double standards. Muslim land is sacred but anything they take in their conquests is legit because Muslims are better.

The Jews have no land in the Middle East. Nor have they had for about 2000 years.

Well they do now it looks like to me. It also looks like they took it by force just like many muslim and christians before them.

[GandalfTheGrey]

Most Western converts are usually attracted to militant Islam and they don't believe that Islam is a religion of peace.

Well thats one unsubstantiated claim if ever I've seen one. I have no idea what you are basing this information on, but it sounds suspiciously like a stereotype to me. I guess the only western converts you hear about are the ones that join ISIS or get arrested making pipe bombs and you make the erroneous conclusions that therefore they're are the representative converts.

There is no legitimate reason for non-Arabs to convert to Islam unless you're marrying into a Muslim family.

Goodness TT - thats two pieces of undiluted trollop in one post. I'm disappointed. I doubt if its possible for you to come up with something more meaningless - what exactly would be a "legitimate reason"? Thats on a par with what someone else said a few posts down - that muslim converts "only" convert, among other things, to find meaning to their lives. I mean, can anyone think of a situation where someone might convert to any religion and *NOT* be primarily motivated by finding meaning to their lives?

[abu_rashid]

I don’t know if you can say that Christians aren’t “pure” because they worship God in human form. I would expect you mean “wrong in thinking that Jesus is God”.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough there. I did't mean the people themselves are impure, I meant the theology is not purely about God. There is a distraction to an "associate", a secondary and even tertiary partner in godhood. Islam is the only religion, I've ever come across that is purely about God.

But with regard to idol worship, Muslims seem to have an extreme feeling of attachment to Mohammed which is the equivalent of worshipping a human when there should be no reason for this because he was actually just a “messenger”- the same as Moses or David or anyone.

It's preposterous to suggest that because Muslims emulate Muhammad (pbuh) therefore they idolise and worship him. Anyone who worships Muhammad (pbuh) is a polytheist and is outside of the fold of Islam. It's even more fanciful when we're comparing it to Christians, the vast bulk of whom (JW's and a few other small sects excluded) clearly, openly and unashamedly worship Jesus Christ (pbuh) and declare him to be God manifest.

Humans need an example, they need someone to emulate and use as a role model. This role is not for a deity, because the human can never hope to attain the level of a deity anyway, nor even an angel, because again we cannot attain their level. We need a human being, just like us, whom we can emulate. This is precisely what prophets/messengers were sent for.

This isn’t true of Christianity either. People who believe in Jesus as the messiah aren’t necessarily guaranteed a place in heaven. One of the major problems with any religion is the translation of the text (in this case from Greek to English). The Greek in the bible uses a tense that shows that you must continue walking in the ways of Jesus to be saved. This doesn’t translate to English very well. There are a few passages that will tell you that you won’t go to heaven based on belief in Jesus alone.

Christianity lost its ability to transform lives at the Council of Jerusalem. Once Paul invented his own "easy come, easy go" version of Christianity for the "Gentiles" and it became dominant, Christianity became something that was more likely to be transformed rather than to transform. From there onwards it was a downward spiral. Christianity went from monotheistic religion to Syncretic Pagan mish-mash, and it just got worse and worse as time went on. Jesus (pbuh) and his followers would not even recognise it today.

It’s definitely both. I’m not sure how much less big business men can afford to pay immigrant workers than natives, especially today when we have a minimum wage.

Well if they're illegals, they've gotta work cheap don't they? To avoid being discovered. Hence the reason they're now closing the borders. So here's how it goes. 1) Announce you're welcoming millions of refugees, 2) let them set out crossing treacherous waters etc so there's no turning back, 3) Then close the borders when they're all almost there. And if some "events" happen to occur that would turn the public opinion against refugees, that can only be helpful. As it justifies why you had to close the borders.

I think it’s clothing made of “pure” silk. But this is interesting nonetheless and I never knew about it before Googling it.

Either way it's most certainly not going to be something stereotypical of Muslims.

True, they are a product of Western aggression, but this doesn’t mean Islamic terrorism should be accepted within your own country.

Right, they shouldn't be accepted in any country!

Like I was saying, it’s understandable that an Iraqi would fight against British soldiers in Iraq. But for “British” Muslims who are born and raised in Britain to show loyalty to Iraqi Muslims instead of their own state because of their devotion to Islam, this is a product of liberalism and diversity.

So when Muslims supposedly bombed the WTC, was it understandable that other Western countries would help the U.S seek revenge?

The “tolerance” of plural interpretations by Catholics and Protestants is fairly recent. But the existence of different interpretations is far from new. I don’t see why you would think that Christianity is less likely to be pluralistic when Jesus spoke mostly in parables.

It just never has been all throughout its history, until very recently, and that was by force.

This again can be interpreted differently. “Lost sheep of Israel” is likely to mean “strayed from the house of Israel” (some Bibles clearly write it in this way). “Israel” is said by many to be symbolic rather than literal. Much in the same way that “The New Jerusalem “ is meant to describe “the world after the second coming (heaven on earth)” and not “the actual city of Jerusalem regenerated”

She was a Canaanite. It was clearly about non-Israelites.

Btw I think this feeds into the point above about transforming and how Christianity compromised for gentiles. Jesus' (pbuh) message was not designed for gentile consumption, and the fact it had to be transformed to make it appealing to them is evidence of this.

[Dagoth Ur]

I like how Besoeker thinks that his testing question is a gotcha. lol literally no two humans behave the exact same way. Any product made by man like that would be thoroughly tested.

Also he totally ignores the possibility that God gets nothing from the test but our souls do, like prayer.

Or that I could come up with a million other theologically justified excuses that you can't disprove at all.

[Besoeker]

I like how Besoeker thinks that his testing question is a gotcha.

Not at all intended as a gotcha.

lol literally no two humans behave the exact same way. Any product made by man like that would be thoroughly tested.
Also he totally ignores the possibility that God gets nothing from the test but our souls do, like prayer.

God, if such exists and is omniscient as our friend abu_rashid asserts, would already know the outcome of any tests so there would be no point in him conducting tests. So who does and why?

Or that I could come up with a million other theologically justified excuses that you can't disprove at all.

Excuses - interesting choice of word.

And still abu_rashid evades my simple, direct question.
Don't you wonder why?

[Dagoth Ur]

Not at all intended as a gotcha.

God, if such exists and is omniscient as our friend abu_rashid asserts, would already know the outcome of any tests so there would be no point in him conducting tests. So who does and why?

How can you know the outcome of a test that never happened? Omniscience relates to knowing all that is not knowing all that could be.

Excuses - interesting choice of word.

lol

And still abu_rashid evades my simple, direct question.
Don't you wonder why?

No I do not wonder. You insulted him and have been aggressive at every turn.

[Besoeker]

How can you know the outcome of a test that never happened? Omniscience relates to knowing all that is not knowing all that could be.

Knowing all that there is to know. That, in my opinion, would include knowing the outcome of any tests. Are you suggesting that god, if he exists, has limited powers? Is not omnipotent?

And still abu_rashid evades my simple, direct question.
Don't you wonder why?

No I do not wonder. You insulted him and have been aggressive at every turn.

That is absolute rubbish. And I suspect you know it to be so.
He has invited me to take a long walk off a short pier, to die by drowing, called me filfh and a low life.
I have not once, not once, responded in kind to such remarks intended to cause personal offence.

So who is doing the insulting here?

[Dagoth Ur]

Knowing all that there is to know.

Which is all that is. What isn't is of zero consequence.

That, in my opinion, would include knowing the outcome of any tests. Are you suggesting that god, if he exists, has limited powers? Is not omnipotent?

No I am "suggesting" that omnipotence is a concept related to knowing all that is.

God is Infinite. All that is, is lesser than Her.

That is absolute rubbish. And I suspect you know it to be so.

I know nothing of the sort. You misspelled Abu's username in a clearly explicit way, and then proceeded to jump immediately into gotcha style questioning.

He has invited me to take a long walk off a short pier, to die by drowing, called me filfh and a low life.

I have not once, not once, responded in kind to such remarks intended to cause personal offence.
I never said Abu Rashid was smart about how he dealt with your insults. That he chomped down on your bait is no moral victory for you.

So who is doing the insulting here?

Both of you. With you as the agitator.

[abu_rashid]

How can you know the outcome of a test that never happened? Omniscience relates to knowing all that is not knowing all that could be.

Extremely well said.

[Besoeker]

Extremely well said.

So what is the point of testing?
You continue to evade that simple and direct question.

[Besoeker]

I never said Abu Rashid was smart about how he dealt with your insults.

What insults?

[Dagoth Ur]

I will not engage your transparent attempt to evade blame for setting off an aggressive turn of events.

Also the point of the testing is that every one of us humans is important to God. Again the test is of ourselves, God is changed in no way by your choices. Being all merciful means being all understanding.

[Besoeker]

I will not engage your transparent attempt to evade blame for setting off an aggressive turn of events.

Agressive? I simply asked a simple and direct question which abu-rashid continues to evade.
So what insults are you referring to?

Also the point of the testing is that every one of us humans is important to God. Again the test is of ourselves

By whom?

[Dagoth Ur]

By whom what? Who does the testing? I suspect material existence itself is the tester and compiler of data. In fact it must test and compile to continue progressing.

[anasawad]

Well. As dagoth said. There million possible answers all are valid. Yet as abu rashid said as much as we try and advance we can not reach the level of comprehension to fully understand gods wizdom. Anyways. For the question. There are 2 creations with free well living here. Ins as in humans. And jin who vary between a multitude of things. Both have freedom of well. Jin are superior to us and our existence is in one hand a test for them . Whether they follow god or will thry disobey and try to take us along. It would come out better if i want to express it in my language. On the other hand the test for us is harder. We cant see god. We cant see angels or jin .which demons are part of jin. We dont have the ability to know any of those . Yet we were given signs and the test is to belive or not. Why is thw test . Alsocountless answers. One mentioned above . And anther is god is all given and loves to give and those to recieve must pass the test. And in the morning ll think of more and start listing many more reasons because just in the level we can comprehend there aremany reasons for it.

[Besoeker]

Well. As dagoth said. There million possible answers all are valid. Yet as abu rashid said as much as we try and advance we can not reach the level of comprehension to fully understand gods wizdom.

Could that be because there is no god?

[Dagoth Ur]

What does one have to do with the other? The totality of theology being incorrect or correct has zero weight in relation to the possibility of God's existence.

[Besoeker]

By whom what? Who does the testing? I suspect material existence itself is the tester and compiler of data. In fact it must test and compile to continue progressing.

Why exactly?

And I note you haven't answered my question about what insults.
If you accuse me of that then you should have no difficulty in citing insults by me. If you can't, you should immediatly withdraw that accusation.